Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200508204200.13481-1-sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
 <20200508204200.13481-5-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> <20200511104922.GD8216@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20200511104922.GD8216@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 17:20:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO_48GHXNYT7KT+7U_TNT5GtensREckKEVhD3nBTriaAePAr=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 4/4] regulator: qcom: labibb: Add SC interrupt handling
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     agross@kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        lgirdwood@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        Nisha Kumari <nishakumari@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kgunda@codeaurora.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Mark,

Thanks for the review comments.

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 16:19, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:12:00AM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>
> > +static irqreturn_t labibb_sc_err_handler(int irq, void *_reg)
> > +{
> > +     int ret, count;
> > +     u16 reg;
> > +     u8 sc_err_mask;
> > +     unsigned int val;
> > +     struct labibb_regulator *labibb_reg = (struct labibb_regulator *)_reg;
> > +     bool in_sc_err, reg_en, scp_done = false;
> > +
> > +     if (irq == labibb_reg->sc_irq)
> > +             reg = labibb_reg->base + REG_LABIBB_STATUS1;
> > +     else
> > +             return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> Why would we be registering the interrupt handler when it's not valid?
Agreed, will correct.

Best,
Sumit.